David Learmount/LONDON
Those who argue that there is a degradation of basic flying skills in line pilots ascribe it to many things, the favourite being flightdeck automation. Parc Aviation consultant Capt Russell Kane, a former Aer Lingus captain, says that there is evidence that giving undue importance to cockpit resource management (CRM) as a part of line-pilot training can result in a shift of emphasis away from skill and knowledge training.
This conclusion resulted partly from studies after Parc, which provides a training and a crew-assessment service for airlines all over the world, found a consensus of opinion among its staff that many of the pilots assessed showed "a disturbingly low level of knowledge and skills".
In a subsequent study aimed at identifying the level of pilot skills, three skill-categories were marked: simulator-tested flying skills, technical knowledge, and CRM. Parc found that the best-developed skill in most of the pilots was CRM. It was also the skill at which fewest pilots were rated "poor". This analysis involved a batch of 72 pilots who were selected "on the basis of their experience and qualifications", from 1,110 who applied for posts "-considered highly desirable in the pilot community". In the lowest-skills category, 42% of the pilots were "poor" at flying, 35% poor at technical knowledge and 25% below standard at CRM. "Average" grading was assigned to 33% of the pilots for flying skills, to 47% of them for technical, and 49% for CRM. The small numbers listed in the above-average grade and in the "A-minus" level between average and poor were relatively insignificant. Even among the above-average pilots, however, CRM was the subject at which the largest number excelled, and there were only three pilots who achieved above-average marks in all three categories, Parc reveals.
FLYING SKILLS EMPHASIS
The simple implication of this limited study is that CRM needs less attention than the other skills, so if any redistribution of training time or emphasis were to be allocated, flying and technical skills should be the beneficiaries.
Kane maintains that there are other insidious influences which, while they look good in their own right, can produce unintended side-effects. The US advanced qualification programme (AQP) is a case in point, he says. Although intended to target training to those who most need it, and to areas where it is most needed, Kane fears that this will not be the AQP's only effect. He quotes the US Federal Aviation Administration Human Factors (HF) Team 1996 report The interfaces between flightdecks and modern flightdeck systems, which says: "The HF Team is concerned that the economic benefits of AQP may be receiving emphasis over the need for enhancing safety." That is, instead of just targeting those who definitely need corrective training, those who apparently do not need it are having their training reduced.
The HF team also observes: "As training footprints shrink, or as more knowledge or skill items must be addressed, it becomes increasingly important that critical knowledge and skills are mastered-trying to squeeze more from a shrinking investment in human expertise will not help prevent the kinds of incidents and accidents that are being labelled as human error."
About the Parc study, Kane comments: "While the limitations of the summary of results are readily acknowledged, reading the reports themselves is a troubling experience-Pilots apply incorrect or no rudder input on engine failure, over-use the rudder, or even use it to make course corrections. Others fly with both feet on the floor rather than on the rudder pedals, and use of the stabiliser-trim to make pitch-changes is frequent. Far too many pilots have problems with their scan."
It is relevant that all the sloppy practices observed by Parc were used by pilots who were aware that they were being assessed. Airlines might well wonder what the same pilots would have been like on unsupervised line flying.
Source: Flight International
